Delhi District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Vinay Kumar Chibber @ V. K. Chibber on 8 May, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY GARG, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI)-18,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CBI Case No. 09/2019
CNR No: DLCT110000232019
In the matter of:-
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1. Vinay Kumar Chibber @ V. K. Chibber,
S/o late Sh. Raj Kumar Chibber,
R/o 45, Manav Vihar, Sector -15, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
2. Rupesh Bansal,
S/o Sh. Shiv Narain Bansal,
R/o 70, S.F.S. Shakti Apartments,
Phase-III, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
3. Reeta Bansal,
W/o Sh. Rupesh Bansal,
R/o 70, S.F.S. Shakti Apartments,
Phase-III, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
4. Ashutosh Sehgal,
S/o Sh. Bharam Dev Sehgal,
R/o B-8/14, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
5. Visram Sharma,
S/o Sh. Narotti,
R/o B-6/14, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 1 of 81
6. Vinay Kumar Goel (Proclaimed offender),
S/o Sh. Murli Dhar Goel,
R/o L-61-A, Street No. 21,
New Mahavir Nagar,
Delhi-110016.
7. Vaibhavi Goel (Proclaimed offender),
W/o Sh. Vinay Kumar Goel,
R/o L-61-A, Street No. 21,
New Mahavir Nagar,
Delhi-110016.
8. Arvind Goel (Proclaimed offender),
S/o Sh. Rajeshwar Prasad Gupta,
R/o B-17, Main Haiderpur Road,
Shalimar Village, Delhi-110088.
9. Rajan Arora (Proclaimed offender),
S/o Sh. Des Raj Arora,
R/o 188, Gagan Vihar, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
10. Sunita Arora (Proclaimed offender),
W/o Sh. Rajan Arora,
R/o 188, Gagan Vihar, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
11. Bhushan Dev Chawla (Proclaimed offender),
S/o Pritam Das Chawla,
R/o D-18/19-A, Saket Gali,
Old Gobindpura,
Delhi-110051.
12. Gokul Kumar Sureka ( Proceedings abated),
S/o Sh. Ishwar Prasad Sureka,
R/o D-192, Pundrik Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 2 of 81
13. Sunita Sureka,
W/o Sh. Gokul Kumar Sureka,
R/o D-192, Pundrik Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
14. Prem,
D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Grover,
R/o 11/122, Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031.
15. Sudhir Chugh,
S/o Sh. Ram Bhaj Chugh,
R/o A-1/13, Shivpura Extn.,
Delhi- 110051.
16. Girish Kumar Taneja,
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Taneja,
R/o 19-A, New Gobindpura,
Delhi- 110051.
17. Raman Gupta,
S/o Sh. Shiv Shankar Gupta,
R/o F-238-A, Second Floor,
Mangal Bazar, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092.
18. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta,
S/o Sh. Shiv Shankar Gupta,
R/o F-238-A, Second Floor,
Mangal Bazar, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 3 of 81
Date of presentation of charge sheet : 27.06.2007
Date on which judgment was reserved : 07.04.2021
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 08.05.2021
JUDGMENT:
1. This case pertains to the alleged conspiracy between accused No. 1 V. K. Chibber (A1), the then Manager, Allahabad Bank, and accused Nos. 2 to 18, private persons, to cheat the bank by fraudulently inducing it to sanction various housing loans on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
Case of the prosecution
2. The case was registered vide FIR No. RC/BDI/2004/E/0004 dated 23.06.2004 under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act) and substantive offences thereunder against V. K. Chibber (A1), the then Incharge of the Retail Banking Boutique, Allahabad Bank, Wazirpur Branch, New Delhi and other unknown persons on the basis of written complaint dated 19.06.2004 received from Sh. S. Roy, Chief Vigilance Officer, Allahabad Bank alleging that various irregularities in respect of sanction and disbursement of Housing Loan Public (HLP) and Housing Loan Furnishing (HLF) had come to light.
3. Investigation revealed that during the period 19.10.2000 to C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 4 of 81 07.08.2003, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) was functioning as Incharge of Retail Banking Boutique and was responsible for processing the housing loan applications, sanctioning and recovery of the loans. It was his duty to obtain sufficient security in the form of mortgage of the property and other collateral security against the loan sanctioned by him. It was further his duty to visit the property proposed to be mortgaged with the bank and satisfy himself about the borrowers' unencumbered and unassailable title over the property mortgaged with the bank. However, acting in conspiracy with the other accused persons and by abusing his official position as a public servant, he deliberately violated the Rules and Regulations of the bank and sanctioned loans on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and caused loss to the tune of Rs. 77,63,352/- approximately to the bank.
4. Investigation revealed that in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on 26.02.2003 sanctioned Rs. 11,80,000/- as housing loan No. HLP 242 in the name of accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) and Reeta Bansal (A3) for purchase of house No. 9/2, Second Floor, Ramesh Park Extension, Shahdara, Delhi from Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia and for renovation of the property. Accused V. K. Chibber accepted the sale deed with registration No. 5105 dated 02.08.2003 in respect of the property as mortgage and issued banker's cheque No. 000314 dated 26.02.2003 for Rs. 10,50,000/- (by debiting Rs. 11,000/- to the bank account of the borrowers) in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia as the amount sanctioned for purchase of house. The amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- sanctioned for renovation of the property was transferred to account No. 307249 of the borrowers i.e. C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 5 of 81 accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) and Reeta Bansal (A3) in Allahabad Bank. The borrowers submitted forged bills of various shops falsely showing purchase of materials for construction/renovation of the house. They also defaulted in repayment of loan and the loan account was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) with a balance of Rs. 11,62,174/-.
5. Investigation further revealed that in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on 15.03.2003 sanctioned Rs. 8,75,000/- as housing loan No. HLP 258 in the name of accused Visram Sharma (A5) and one Laxman Prasad for purchase of house No. F-266, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18). Accused V. K. Chibber (A1) accepted the sale deed with registration No. 3703 dated 17.06.2003 in respect of the property as mortgage and issued banker's cheque No. 000384 dated 15.03.2003 for Rs. 8,75,000/- in favour of accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) as the proceeds of the loan. Investigation revealed that Laxman Prasad, co-borrower in the loan, had not signed the loan documents and that the property purportedly mortgaged with the bank as security was in the possession of Smt. Trivani T. Dave and accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) enjoyed no title over the said property. Accused V. K. Chibber (A1) in conspiracy with other accused persons, deliberately accepted the forged title deeds pertaining to the said property without verifying the seller's title to the property. The borrower i.e. accused Visram Sharma (A5) defaulted in repayment of the loan and the loan account was classified as NPA with a balance of Rs. 9,26,702/-.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 6 of 81
6. Investigation further revealed that in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on 26.05.2003 sanctioned Rs. 13,20,000/- as housing loan No. HLP 323 in the name of accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) and Vaibhavi Goel (A7) for purchase of house No. 14, Lal Bahadur Shastri Compound, Shalimar Village, Delhi-110088 from accused Arvind Goel (A8) and for renovation of the same. Rs. 10,00,000/- was for purchase of the house and Rs. 3,20,000/- was for renovation of the property. Accused V. K. Chibber (A1) accepted the sale deed with registration No. 11541 dated 27.05.2003 in respect of the property as mortgage and issued banker's cheque No. 000564 dated 26.05.2003 for Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of accused Arvind Goel (A8) as the proceeds of the loan for purchase of property. The amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- sanctioned for renovation of the property was transferred to account No. 307436 of the borrowers i.e. accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) and Vaibhavi Goel (A7) in Allahabad Bank. Investigation revealed that accused Arvind Goel (A8) had already sold the relevant property to Sh. Kailash Chander Bhutani vide sale deed No. 1900 dated 16.02.1996 and that the same was in the possession of Sh. Kailash Chander Bhutani. Accused V. K. Chibber (A1), in conspiracy with other accused, deliberately accepted the forged title deed pertaining to the said property without verifying the seller's title to the property. The borrowers defaulted in repayment of the loan and the loan account was classified as NPA with a balance of Rs. 13,48,029/-.
7. Investigation further revealed that in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on 30.05.2003 sanctioned C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 7 of 81 Rs. 11,35,000/- as housing loan No. HLP 333 in the name of accused Rajan Arora (A9) and Sunita Arora (A10) for purchase of house No. 98, Second Floor, Front Side, Old Gobindpura, Delhi-110051 from accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) and for renovation of the same. Rs. 9,93,600/- was sanctioned for purchase of the house and Rs. 1,41,400/- was sanctioned for renovation of the property. Accused V. K. Chibber (A1) accepted the sale deed with registration No. 5665 dated 25.08.2003 in respect of the property as mortgage and issued banker's cheque No. 000584 dated 30.05.2003 for Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) as the proceeds of the loan for purchase of property. The amount of Rs. 1,41,400/- sanctioned for renovation of the property was transferred to account No. 307577 of the borrowers i.e. accused Rajan Arora (A9) and Sunita Arora (A10) in Allahabad Bank. Investigation revealed that the borrowers purchased the property in question from one Sh. Ashok Kumar vide General Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2003 and that accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) enjoyed no title over the said property and hence, no title was transferred to the borrowers. Accused V. K. Chibber (A1), in conspiracy with other accused persons, deliberately accepted the forged title deeds pertaining to the said property without verifying the seller's or buyer's title to the property. The borrowers defaulted in repayment of the loan and the loan account was classified as NPA with a balance of Rs. 11,45,044/-.
8. Investigation further revealed that in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on 30.05.2003 sanctioned C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 8 of 81 Rs. 13,50,000/- as housing loan No. HLP 332 in the name of accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) and Sunita Sureka (A13) for purchase of house No. 14, Ground Floor, Lal Bahadur Shastri Compound, Shalimar Village, Delhi-110088 from accused Arvind Goel (A8) and for renovation of the same. Rs. 10,30,000/- was sanctioned for purchase of house and Rs. 3,20,000/- was sanctioned for renovation of the property. Accused V. K. Chibber (A1) accepted the sale deed with registration No. 11542 dated 30.05.2003 in respect of the property as mortgage and issued banker's cheque No. 000581 dated 30.05.2003 for Rs. 10,30,000/- in favour of accused Arvind Goel (A8) as the proceeds of the loan for purchase of property. Out of the amount sanctioned for renovation of the property, Rs. 2,22,000/- was transferred to account No. 307582 of the borrowers i.e. accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) and Sunita Sureka (A13) in Allahabad Bank. Investigation revealed that accused Arvind Goel (A8) had already sold the relevant property to Sh. Kailash Chander Bhutani vide sale deed No. 1900 dated 16.02.1996 and the said property was in the possession of Sh. Kailash Chander Bhutani. Accused V. K. Chibber (A1), in conspiracy with other accused persons, deliberately accepted the forged title deeds pertaining to the said property without verifying the seller's title to the property. The borrowers defaulted in repayment of the loan and the loan account was classified as NPA with a balance of Rs. 11,09,301/-.
9. Investigation further revealed that in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on 27.11.2002 sanctioned Rs. 8,00,000/- as housing loan No. HLP 173 in the name of accused Prem C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 9 of 81 (A14) for purchase of house No. F-266, Second Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from accused Sudhir Chugh (A15). Accused V. K. Chibber (A1) accepted the sale deed with registration No. 3394 dated 27.11.2002 in respect of the property as mortgage and issued banker's cheque No. 000084 dated 27.11.2002 for Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) as the proceeds of the loan. Investigation revealed that the property purportedly mortgaged with the bank as security was in the possession of Smt. Daxa R. Dave and that accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) enjoyed no title over the said property and hence, no title was transferred to the borrower i.e. accused Prem (A14). Accused V. K. Chibber (A1), in conspiracy with other accused persons, deliberately accepted the forged title deeds pertaining to the said property without verifying the seller's title to the property. The borrower defaulted in repayment of loan and the loan account was classified as NPA with a balance of Rs. 7,35,439/-.
10. Investigation also revealed that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on 14.05.2003 sanctioned Rs. 13,75,000/- as housing loan No. HLP 308 in the name of Mohd. Raffan and Shabana (both absconding) for purchase of house No. FF-39/D, Second Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) and for renovation of the same. Rs. 10,84,000/- was sanctioned for purchase of the house and Rs. 2,91,000/- for renovation of the property. Accused V. K. Chibber (A1) accepted the sale deed with registration No. 3526 dated 19.05.2003 in respect of the property as mortgage and issued banker's cheque No. 000531 dated 14.05.2003 for Rs. 11,00,000/- in favour of C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 10 of 81 accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) as the proceeds of the loan for purchase of property. The excess amount of Rs. 16,000/- was debited to the account of the borrowers. Out of the amount sanctioned for renovation, Rs. 1,90,000/- was transferred to account No. 307473 of the borrowers i.e. Mohd. Raffan and Shabana in Allahabad Bank. Investigation revealed that accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) enjoyed no title over the said property and hence, no title was transferred to the borrowers. They had submitted forged documents relating to the title to the mortgaged property showing sale of the said property by accused Raman Gupta (A17) to accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4), who in turn sold the property to the borrower Mohd. Raffan. Accused V. K. Chibber (A1), in conspiracy with other accused persons, deliberately accepted the forged title deeds pertaining to the said property without verifying the seller's title to the property. The borrowers defaulted in repayment of the loan and the loan account was classified as NPA with a balance of Rs. 12,46,663/-.
11. Upon completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and substantive offences thereunder against accused V. K. Chibber (A1), Rupesh Bansal (A2), Reeta Bansal (A3), Ashutosh Sehgal (A4), Visram Sharma (A5), Vinay Kumar Goel (A6), Vaibhavi Goel (A7), Arvind Goel (A8), Rajan Arora (A9), Sunita Arora (A10), Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11), Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12), Sunita Sureka (A13), Prem (A14), Sudhir Chugh (A15), Girish Kumar Taneja (A16), Raman Gupta (A17) and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 11 of 81 (A18).
12. Vide order dated 12.08.2010, the Court took cognizance of the offences involved and summoned all the accused persons. Since accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6), Vaibhavi Goel (A7), Arvind Goel (A8), Rajan Arora (A9), Sunita Arora (A10) and Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) failed to appear before the Court, they were declared proclaimed offenders on 04.07.2012 and 07.07.2012.
Charge
13. On 02.01.2013, the charges were framed for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120 B read with Sections 420, 471 IPC & Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act and substantive offences under Sections 420 & 471 IPC against accused V. K. Chibber (A1), Rupesh Bansal (A2), Reeta Bansal (A3), Ashutosh Sehgal (A4), Visram Sharma (A5), Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12), Sunita Sureka (A13), Prem (A14), Sudhir Chugh (A15), Girish Kumar Taneja (A16), Raman Gupta (A17) and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18). An additional charge for the substantive offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act was also framed against accused V. K. Chibber (A1). All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution evidence
14. The prosecution examined 31 witnesses in support of its case.
15. PW1 Sh. Rattan Lal deposed that he had contacted accused Rajan C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 12 of 81 Arora (A9), who was engaged in the work of property dealing, about 12 years ago for purchase of a house. He further deposed that the accused Rajan Arora (A9) and Girish Taneja (A16) took him to the office of accused Rupesh Bansal (A2), where all of them took his income tax returns and PAN card and obtained his signatures on some documents by representing that the same were required for the purpose of applying loan for purchase of property. He further deposed that the said accused persons had charged Rs. 25,000/- from him towards documentation expenses but later on, refunded the same as the loan was not sanctioned. The witness was shown several documents forming part of the file (Ex. PW1/A) pertaining to housing loan HLP 333 in the name of accused Rajan Arora (A9) and Sunita Arora (A10) and he identified his signature in the capacity of attesting witness on the sale deed (Ex. PW1/B) dated 31.05.2003 executed between accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) and accused Rajan Arora (A9) in respect of property No. 98, Old Gobind Pura, Shahdara, Delhi-110051. He further identified the photographs of accused Rajan Arora (A9) and his wife Sunita Arora (A10) on the credit report (Ex. PW1/C) dated 20.05.2003 of the borrowers. He further identified his photographs and signatures and that of his son Vikas Sharma in the capacity of guarantors on the credit report dated 20.05.2003 (Ex. PW1/D) and the indemnity bond dated 30.05.2003 (Ex.PW1/E). He also identified his signatures on the copies of his income tax returns (Mark PW1/F), copy of his election identity card (Mark PW 1/G) and copy of his ration card (Mark PW1/H).
16. PW2 Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma deposed that he used to work as C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 13 of 81 Accountant with M/s. Roshan Lal Pawan Kumar situated at K-5, Rajdhani Park, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 in the year 2003 and prepare its bills and invoices. He also deposed that bill dated 08.03.2003 (Ex. PW2/A) in favour of Rupesh Bansal (A2) was not issued by any official of the said firm nor the goods reflected therein were supplied by the said firm.
17. PW3 Sh. S. Roy was posted as Chief Vigilance Officer in the Allahabad Bank from 2001 to 2004. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of his complaint dated 19.06.2004. He proved the said complaint as Ex. PW3/A.
18. PW4 Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta, who was the owner of Bhagwati Sanitary Hardware and Mill Store situated at B/15, Main Road, Shalimar Gaon, Delhi, deposed that the cash memo dated 09.06.2003 (Ex. PW4/A) in favour of Vinay Goel (A6) was neither issued from his shop nor bears his signature at point A.
19. PW5 Sh. Madan Lal Arora deposed that he was working as Income Tax Officer during the period 24.05.2007 to 06.09.2007 and proved the letter dated 18.05.2007 whereby the CBI had sought certain information from him and the letter dated 14.06.2007 written by him in response to the said letter as Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/A respectively.
20. PW6 Sh. Dapinder Singh deposed that he was posted as Deputy Manager in HDFC Bank, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from 2004 to 2007 and C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 14 of 81 proved his signatures on all the pages of the Account Opening Form (Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/F) of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4). He also proved the statement of account of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) for the period 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2003 as Ex. PW6/G.
21. PW7 Sh. Ashok Kumar identified the impression of his photograph on the photocopy of the General Power of Attorney dated 23.03.2000 (Mark PW7/A) executed by Smt. Neelam Sharma in his favour in respect of the flat No. 98, Gobind Pura Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. He also identified the impressions of his photograph and that of accused Rajan Arora (A9) on the photocopy of the General Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2003 (Mark PW7/B) executed by him in the favour of accused Rajan Arora in respect of the said property.
22. PW8 Sh. Kailash Chander Bhutani identified the impressions of his signature and photograph and photograph of accused Arvind Goel (A8) on the photocopy of the registered sale deed dated 16.02.1996 (Mark PW8/A) executed by accused Arvind Goel in his favour in respect of the house No. 14, Village Shalimar, Delhi. He deposed that the said property was subsequently sold by him through a registered sale deed to some relative of accused Arvind Goel.
23. PW9 Sh. Bhupender Bhatia deposed that his uncle Sh. Ripu Daman Bhatia purchased a property in his name in the year 2003. He proved the registered sale deed dated 26.02.2003 executed by him in favour of C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 15 of 81 accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) in respect of the said property i.e. second floor of property bearing No. 9/2, Ramesh Park Extension, Shahdara, Delhi as Ex. PW1/J. He further proved the application dated 28.02.2003 submitted by him with Allahabad Bank for opening a savings bank account in his name as Ex. PW9/A; the banker's cheque dated 26.02.2003 for a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- issued by Allahabad Bank in his favour as Ex. PW9/B and the cheques Nos. 082311, 082312, 082314, 082315, 082316, 082317, 082318, 082319, 082320, 082791, 082792 & 082793 stated to have been signed in blank and handed over by him to accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) as Ex. PW9/C1 to Ex. PW9/C12.
24. PW10 Sh. Surender Paul deposed that he was posted as Commissioner, Income Tax, Delhi from 09.06.2006 to 31.08.2007. He proved his letter dated 24.05.2007 whereby certain information was forwarded to the CBI as Ex. PW10/A. He further deposed that the copies of income tax returns (Ex. PW10/B to Ex.PW10/D) were not received or acknowledged by the Income Tax Department.
25. PW11 Sh. Amrit Lal Pahwa deposed that he was posted as Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Allahabad Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi from 2006 to 2008 and proved the attested copy of order dated 06.08.2003 whereby the accused V. K. Chibber (A1) was placed under suspension as Ex. PW11/A; the attested copy of order dated 05.12.2003 vide which the said suspension order was revoked as Ex. PW3/DX and the attested copy of order dated 13.05.2005 whereby the C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 16 of 81 accused V. K. Chibber (A1) was compulsorily retired from the bank's service as Ex. PW11/B.
26. PW12 Sh. Tarun Kumar Dave has identified the photographs of Smt. Laxmi Devi Sehgal, mother of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4), and his wife Smt. Trivani T. Dave on the registered sale deed dated 07.06.1999 (Ex. PW12/A) executed by Smt. Laxmi Devi Sehgal in favour of his wife in respect of the first floor of property bearing No. F-266/E, Laxmi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110092.
27. PW13 Sh. Devender Kumar has deposed that he was posted as Deputy Director (Systems) in the office of Commissioner, Income Tax in the year 2007 and proved his letter dated 29.05.2007 whereby certain information was forwarded to the CBI as Ex. PW13/A.
28. PW14 Sh. Gyan Prakash Arora deposed that he purchased a plot in the name of his mother Smt. Chando Bai. He identified the impressions of his signatures and photographs on the photocopies of the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit and Receipt, all dated 03.09.1996 [Mark PW14/A (Colly.)] executed by him in favour of Sh. B. R. Bansal and Sh. Vijay Kumar in respect of the said plot No. 98, Gobind Pura Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-110051. The witness was also shown the photocopies of the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Receipt, Will and Possession Letter, all dated 07.07.1988 [Mark PW 14/C (Colly.)] and he deposed that the said documents could not have C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 17 of 81 been executed by his mother in favour of Sh. Sham Sunder Arora in respect of the above said plot as she had expired on 11.04.1973.
29. PW15 Sh. D. L. Malik deposed that he used to take cheques from accused Arvind Goel (A8) and hand over the money to him after the encashment of cheques. He proved his signatures on the backside of cheques No. 097262 dated 26.06.2003 (Ex. PW15/A), No. 075203 dated 24.08.2002 (Ex. PW15/B), No. 075205 dated 02.09.2002 (Ex. PW15/C) and No. 102461 dated 15.12.2003 (Ex. PW15/D) all drawn on Allahabad bank. He further deposed that he had visited the office of the Sub-Registrar with accused Arvind Goel (A8) for signing some documents as a witness.
30. PW16 Sh. Ripu Daman Bhatia identified his signatures in the capacity of attesting witness on the following documents, (i) Sale deed dated 26.02.2003 (Ex. PW1/J) executed by his nephew Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia in favour of accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) in respect of the second floor of property bearing No. 9/2, Ramesh Park Extension, Shahdara, Delhi; (ii) Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 23.12.2002 (Ex. PW9/DX) executed between the said parties in respect of the above property and (iii) Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 17.09.2002 (Ex. PW9/DX1) executed between Sh. Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia in respect of the above said property.
31. PW17 Sh. Rajesh Dave identified the photographs of Smt. Laxmi Devi Sehgal, mother of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4), and his wife Smt. C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 18 of 81 Daxa R. Dave on the sale deed dated 20.05.1999 (Ex. PW17/A) executed by Smt. Laxmi Devi Sehgal in favour of his wife in respect of the second floor of property bearing No. F-266/E, Laxmi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
32. PW18 Sh. S. K. Azad deposed that he was posted as Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Scope Tower, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi in the year 2006. He proved the account opening form in the joint names of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) and Raman Gupta (A17) as Ex. PW18/A; the account opening form in the name of accused Visram (A5) as Ex. PW18/B; the account opening form in the name of Mohd. Raffan as Ex. PW18/C; the receipt issued by the Punjab National Bank in respect of deposit of cheque No. 077765 dated 17.06.2003 issued by accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) in favour of accused Raman Gupta (A17) as Ex. PW18/D and the said cheque No. 077765 dated 17.06.2003 as Ex. PW18/E.
33. PW19 Sh. Sushil Sarin deposed that he was posted as Sr. Manager in Khatri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. in the year 2002. He proved his letter dated 23.09.2005 whereby certain documents were forwarded to the CBI as Ex. PW19/A; the account opening form & specimen signatures card in respect of accused Girish Taneja (A16) as Ex. PW19/B (Colly.); the statement of bank account for the period 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 in respect of accused Girish Taneja (A16) as Ex. PW19/C; the account opening form & specimen signatures card in respect of accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) as Ex. PW19/D (Colly.); the statement of bank account for C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 19 of 81 the period 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 in respect of accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) as Ex. PW19/E; the account opening form and specimen signatures card in respect of M/s. Shiv Shakti Industrial Corporation as Ex. PW19/F (Colly.) and the statement of account for the period 01.10.2001 to 31.03.2002 in respect of M/s. Shiv Shakti Industrial Corporation as Ex. PW19/G.
34. PW20 Smt. Manjula Aggarwal deposed that she purchased the plot No. 39FF, Khajuri Khas, Laxmi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi from some one and thereafter, sold the same to some one for about Rs. 90,000/-. She stated that she never sold the said plot to accused Raman Gupta (A17).
35. PW21 Sh. Ajit Singh deposed that he was posted as Manager in Allahabad Bank, Retail Banking Boutique Branch, Wazirpur, New Delhi in August, 2003. He proved the seizure memos dated 13.08.2004, 26.08.2004, 17.09.2004, 27.10.2004, 01.12.2004 and 01.12.2004 as Ex. PW21/A1 to Ex. PW21/A6. He further deposed that the loan files of accused Prem (A14), accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) & Reeta Bansal (A3), accused Visram (A5), Mohd. Raffan and Shabana, accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) & Vaibhavi Goel (A7), accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) & Sunita Sureka (A13) and accused Rajan Arora (A9) & Sunita Arora (A10) do not contain any record that the accused V. K. Chibber (A1) visited the relevant properties for the purpose of inspection/verification.
36. PW22 Sh. Narendra Kumar Mehrol deposed that he was posted as C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 20 of 81 an officer in Retail Banking Boutique, Allahabad Bank, Wazir Pur, Delhi during the period 2002 to 2007. He proved the seizure memos dated 06.09.2005, 04.10.2005, 25.11.2005, 07.01.2005, 08.04.2005, 20.05.2006 and 17.07.2006 as Ex. PW22/A1 to Ex. PW22/A7. The witness was shown the loan file [Ex. PW22/B (Colly.)] pertaining to accused Prem (A14), loan file [Ex. PW22/D (Colly.)] pertaining to Mohd. Raffan & Shabana, loan file [Ex. PW22/C (Colly.)] pertaining to accused Visram (A5) & Sh. Laxman Prasad, loan file [Ex. PW22/E (Colly.)] pertaining to accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) & Vaibhavi Goel (A7), loan file [Ex. PW22/F (Colly.)] pertaining to accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) & Sunita Sureka (A13), loan file [Ex. PW22/G (Colly.)] pertaining to accused Rajan Arora (A9) & Sunita Arora (A10) and loan file (Ex. PW1/1) pertaining to accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) & Reeta Bansal (A3) and he identified the handwritings/signatures of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) appearing therein. He further proved the transfer voucher dated 24.03.2003 in respect of loan advanced to accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) as Ex. PW22/H1. He further proved the cheque No. 083341 dated 24.03.2003, cheque No. 083342 dated 25.03.2003, cheque No. 083343 dated 27.03.2003, cheque No. 083345 dated 28.03.2003, cheque No. 083346 dated 11.05.2003 all issued from account No. 307343 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) as Ex. PW22/H2 to Ex. PW22/H6. He further proved the bankers cheque No. 000531 dated 14.05.2003 issued by accused V. K. Chibber (A1) in favour of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) as Ex. PW22/H7. He further proved the statement of bank account for the period 14.03.2000 to 16.09.2005 in respect of C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 21 of 81 Mohd. Raffan & Shabana, statement of bank account for the period 14.03.2000 to 31.08.2005 in respect of accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) & Sunita Sureka (A13), statement of bank account for the period 14.03.2000 to 31.08.2005 in respect of Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia & Sh. Rajpal Bhatia, statement of bank account for the period 14.03.2000 to 31.08.2005 in respect of accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18), statement of bank account for the period 14.03.2000 to 30.10.2004 in respect of accused Rajan Arora (A9) & Sunita Arora (A10), statement of bank account for the period 01.01.2000 to 26.10.2004 in respect of accused Arvind Goel (A8) & Anita Goel, statement of bank account for the period 01.01.2000 to 26.10.2004 in respect of Sh. Raj Kumar Taneja & accused Girish Taneja (A16), statement of bank account for the period 01.01.2002 to 30.10.2004 in respect of accused Prem (A14), statement of bank account for the period 01.01.2002 to 30.10.2004 in respect of accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) & Aarti Chawla, statement of bank account for the period 01.01.2002 to 30.10.2004 in respect of accused Visram (A5), statement of bank account for the period 01.01.2002 to 30.10.2004 in respect of accused Rajan Arora (A9) & Sunita Arora (A10) and statement of bank account for the period 01.01.2000 to 24.01.2007 in respect of accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) & Vaibhavi Goel (A7) as Ex. PW 22/J (Colly.) to Ex. PW 22/U (Colly.). He further proved the account opening form of accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) & Vaibhavi Goel (A7), account opening form of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) & Vandana Sehgal, account opening form of Sh. Raj Kumar Taneja & accused Girish Taneja (A16), account opening form of accused Arvind Goel (A8) & Anita Goel, account opening C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 22 of 81 form of accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) & Aarti Chawla, account opening form of accused Prem (A14), account opening form of accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) & Reeta Bansal (A3), account opening form of accused Visram (A5), account opening form of Mohd. Raffan & Shabana, account opening form of accused Rajan Arora (A9) & Sunita Arora (A10), account opening form of accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) & Sunita Sureka (A13) and account opening form of accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) as Ex. PW22/V to Ex. PW22/W10. He further proved the pay-in- slip by which Rs. 10,30,000/- was credited in the account of accused Arvind Goel (A8), pay-in-slip by which Rs. 11,00,000/- was credited in the account of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4), pay-in-slip by which Rs. 10,00,000/- was credited in the account of accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) and pay-in-slip by which Rs. 10,50,000/- was credited in the account of Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia as Ex. PW22/X to Ex. PW22/X3. He further proved the cheques Nos. 096051, 096054, 096055, 096056 and 096058 issued from account No. 306795 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Arvind Goel (A8) as Ex. PW22/Y (Colly.); the cheque No. 075201 issued from the above said account of accused Arvind Goel (A8) as Ex. PW22/Y1; the cheques Nos. 090731, 090732, 090736, 095181, 095182, 095185, 095189, 075011, 075013 and 075019 issued from account No. 306543 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16) as Ex. PW22/Y2 (Colly.); the cheques Nos. 092361, 092362, 092363, 092364 and 092365 issued from account No. 306542 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) as Ex. PW22/Y3 (Colly.); the cheques Nos. 077763 and 077764 issued from the above said C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 23 of 81 account of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) as Ex. PW22/Y4 (Colly.); the cheque No. 096252 issued from account No. 307473 of Allahabad Bank belonging to Mohd. Raffan as Ex. PW22/Y5; the cheques Nos. 083312, 083314 and 083313 issued from account No. 307012 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) as Ex. PW22/Y6 to Ex. PW22/Y8; the cheque No. 085966 issued from account No. 307436 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) as Ex. PW22/Y9; the bankers cheque dated 30.5.2003 for Rs.10,00,000/- issued by accused V. K. Chibber (A1) in favour of accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) as Ex. PW22/Y10; the cheque No. 097261 issued from account No. 307582 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) as Ex. PW22/Y11; the cheques Nos. 075203, 075205 and 102461 issued from account No. 306795 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Arvind Goel (A8) as Ex. PW22/Y12 to Ex. PW22/Y14; the cheques Nos. 077761 and 077766 issued from account No. 306542 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) as Ex. PW22/Y15 and Ex. PW22/Y16 respectively; the cheques Nos. 083315, 083316 and 083317 issued from account No. 307012 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) as Ex. PW22/Y17(Colly.); the cheque No. 096052 issued from account No. 306795 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Arvind Goel (A8) as Ex. PW22/Y18; the cheque No. 077762 issued from account No. 306542 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) as Ex. PW22/Y19 and the cheque No. 085961 issued from account No. 307436 of Allahabad Bank belonging to accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) as Ex. PW22/Y20. He further proved the transfer C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 24 of 81 voucher dated 28.05.2003 in respect of loan advanced to Mohd. Raffan & Shabana and transfer voucher dated 30.05.2003 in respect of loan advanced to accused Rajan Arora (A9) & Sunita Arora (A10) as Ex. PW22/Z and Ex. PW22/Z1 respectively. He further proved the seizure memo dated 24.01.2007 as Ex. PW22/Z2. He also proved the transfer voucher dated 27.03.2003 in respect of loan advanced to accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) & Reeta Bansal (A3), transfer voucher dated 26.02.2003 in respect of loan advanced to accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) & Reeta Bansal (A3), transfer voucher dated 27.02.2003 in respect of loan advanced to accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) & Reeta Bansal (A3), transfer voucher dated 23.06.2003 in respect of loan advanced to accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) & Sunita Sureka (A13), transfer voucher dated 23.06.2003 in respect of loan advanced to accused Rajan Arora (A9) & Sunita Arora (A10) and transfer voucher dated 09.07.2003 in respect of loan advanced to accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) as Ex. PW22/Z3 to Ex. PW 22/Z8.
37. PW23 Sh. K. Davidson, the then General Manager & Chief Vigilance Officer, Allahabad Bank, produced the attested copies of the circular Nos. 7138/ADV/2001-2002/74 dated 24.01.2002, 7407/ADV/2002-2003/35 dated 19.07.2002, 7426/ADV/2002-2003/41 dated 01.08.2002, 7428/ADV/2002-2003/42 dated 03.08.2002, 7536/ADV/2002-2003/63 dated 20.11.2002, 7626/ADV/2002-2003/74 dated 10.02.2003 and 7805/CPRMD/2003-2004/07 dated 24.07.2003 and proved the same as Ex. PW23/1 (Colly.).
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 25 of 81
38. PW24 Sh. I. B. Arora deposed that he was posted as Manager, Retail Banking Boutique, Allahabad Bank, Wazirpur Branch, New Delhi from 06.02.2006 to February/March, 2007. The witness was shown the record pertaining to the grant of housing loan to accused Prem (A14) and he identified the signatures of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on the credit report of borrower, credit report of guarantors, appraisal report, sanction letter dated 27.11.2002, transfer voucher dated 27.11.2002 and bankers cheque dated 27.11.2002 for Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) and proved the same as Ex. PW24/1 to Ex. PW24/6. He also proved the statement of bank account from 01.01.2000 to 30.10.2004 in respect of accused Prem (A14) as Ex. PW24/7. The witness was further shown the record pertaining to the grant of housing loan to accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) & Reeta Bansal (A3) and he identified the signatures of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on the credit report of borrowers, appraisal report and sanction letter dated 26.02.2003 and proved the same as Ex. PW24/8 (Colly.). He also proved the bankers cheque dated 26.02.2003 for Rs. 10,50,000/- in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia and the statement of bank account for the period 14.03.2000 to 30.10.2004 in respect of accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) and Reeta Bansal (A3) as Ex. PW24/9 and Ex. PW24/10 respectively. The witness was further shown the record pertaining to the grant of housing loan to accused Visram (A5) & one Laxman Prasad and he identified the signatures of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on the credit report of borrowers, credit report of guarantors, appraisal report and sanction letter dated 15.03.2003 and proved the same as Ex. PW24/11 (Colly.). He also proved the transfer voucher dated C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 26 of 81 15.03.2003, bankers cheque dated 15.03.2003 for Rs. 8,75,000/- in favour of accused Sanjeev Kumar (A18) and the statement of bank account for the period 14.03.2000 to 30.10.2004 in respect of accused Visram (A5) and Laxman Prasad as Ex. PW24/12 to Ex. PW24/14. The witness was further shown the record pertaining to the grant of housing loan to Mohd. Raffan & Shabana and he identified the signatures of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on the loan application, credit report of borrowers, credit report of guarantors, appraisal report, sanction letter dated 14.05.2003 and transfer voucher dated 14.05.2003 and proved the same as Ex. PW24/15 to Ex. PW24/20 respectively. He also proved the bankers cheque dated 14.05.2003 for Rs. 11,00,000/- in favour of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) and the statement of bank account for the period 14.03.2000 to 16.09.2005 in respect of Mohd. Raffan and Shabana as Ex. PW22/47 and Ex. PW24/21 respectively. The witness was further shown the record pertaining to the grant of housing loan to accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) & Vaibhavi Goel (A7) and he identified the signatures of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on the loan application, credit report of borrowers, credit report of guarantors, appraisal report, sanction letter dated 26.05.2003, transfer voucher dated 26.05.2003 and bankers cheque dated 26.05.2003 for Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of accused Arvind Goel (A8) and proved the same as Ex. PW24/22 to Ex. PW24/28. The witness was further shown the record pertaining to the grant of housing loan to accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) & Sunita Sureka (A13) and he identified the signatures of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on the loan application, credit report of borrowers, credit report of guarantors, appraisal report, sanction letter dated 30.05.2003, transfer C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 27 of 81 voucher dated 30.05.2003 and bankers cheque dated 30.05.2003 for Rs. 10,30,000/- in favour of accused Arvind Goel (A8) and proved the same as Ex. PW24/29 to Ex. PW24/35. The witness was further shown the record pertaining to the grant of housing loan to accused Rajan Arora (A9) & Sunita Arora (A10) and he identified the signatures of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) on the loan application and proved the same as Ex. PW22/G. He also identified his signatures in the capacity of witness on the specimen signatures sheets of accused Girish Taneja (A16) and proved the same as Ex. PW24/36 (Colly.).
39. PW25 Sh. M. S. Gupta deposed that he was posted as Dy. Assessor & Collector, MCD, Sub Zone Pitampura, Zone Rohini, Delhi and proved his letter dated 23.08.2006 whereby certain information was forwarded to the CBI as Ex. PW25/1.
40. PW 26 Ms. Rama Arora had worked as Sr. Manager (Law), Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi from August, 2006 to November, 2009. She deposed about the procedure adopted in the bank for creating mortgage in respect of housing loan.
41. PW27 Sh. K. M. Varkey is the IO of the case. Apart from the documents proved by other witnesses, he proved the production memo dated 20.09.2005 as Ex. PW27/A. He further proved the specimen signatures of accused V. K. Chibber (A1), specimen signatures of accused Visram Sharma (A5), specimen signatures of Sh. Laxman Prasad, C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 28 of 81 specimen signatures of accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6), specimen signatures of accused Arvind Goel (A8), specimen signatures of Ms. Anita Goel, specimen signatures of accused Rajan Arora (A9), specimen signatures of accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11), specimen signatures of accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12), specimen signatures of accused Sunita Sureka (A13), specimen signatures of accused Prem (A14) and specimen signatures of accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) as Ex. PW27/B (Colly.) to Ex. PW27/M (Colly.). He further proved the specimen signatures of accused Raman Gupta (A17), specimen signatures of accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) and specimen signatures of accused Vaibhavi Goel (A7) as Ex. PW27/N ( Colly.) to Ex. PW27/P (Colly.). He further proved the FIR dated 23.06.2004 as Ex. PW27/Q. He also proved the letter dated 28.02.2007 addressed to GEQD, Shimla along with its enclosures and the instructions circulars of Allahabad Bank as Ex. PW27/R (Colly.) and Ex. PW27/S (Colly.) respectively.
42. PW28 Sh. N. C. Sood deposed that he was posted as Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla in the year 2007 and proved his opinion /report No. CX109/2007 dated 10.09.2007, reasons for opinion and covering letter dated 09.10.2007 whereby the said report was forwarded to the CBI as Ex. PW28/A (Colly.).
43. PW29 Sh. Rajesh Kandpal identified his signatures in the capacity of a witness on the specimen signatures sheets of accused Visram Sharma (A5), accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6), accused Rajan Arora (A9), accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11), accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12), accused C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 29 of 81 Sunita Sureka (A13) and accused Prem (A14) and proved the same as Ex. PW27/C (Colly.), Ex. PW27/E (Colly.), Ex. PW27/H (Colly.), Ex. PW27/I (Colly.), Ex. PW 27/J (Colly.), Ex. PW27/K (Colly.) and Ex. PW27/L (Colly.) respectively.
44. PW30 Sh. Tek Chand identified his signatures in the capacity of a witness on the specimen signatures sheets of accused V. K. Chibber (A1), Laxman Prasad, accused Sudhir Chugh (A15), accused Raman Gupta (A17) and accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) and proved the same as Ex. PW27/B (Colly.), Ex. PW27/D (Colly.), Ex. PW27/M (Colly.), Ex. PW27/N (Colly.) and Ex. PW 27/O (Colly.) respectively.
45. PW31 Sh. Laxman Prasad is the brother of accused Visram Sharma (A5). The witness was shown the loan application [forming part of Ex. PW24/11 (Colly.)] pertaining to HLP 258, wherein his name and particulars have been mentioned as a co-borrower. Though he identified the photograph of his brother Visram Sharma (A5) affixed on the loan application but he stated that the photograph affixed on the top of the column meant for co-borrower was not his photograph. He further stated that the signatures of co-borrower as appearing on the loan application were not his signatures. He identified his specimen signatures [Ex. PW27/D (Colly.)] given by him to the CBI officials.
Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC
46. In his statement, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) stated that he had performed his official duties with utmost honesty and sincerity. He further C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 30 of 81 stated that despite the fact that the loan amount disbursed by him was more than Rs. 20 crores, no additional officers were deputed for his assistance in terms of circulars issued by the Head Office of Allahabad Bank and due to excessive work load, he could not personally conduct site visits on some occasions and had to rely upon the valuation and legal scrutiny reports furnished by the empanelled valuer and lawyer of the bank. He further stated that since most of the NPA accounts were recovered or regularized due to his efforts, he was reinstated in service within four months of his suspension. He also stated that he had not conspired with any of the co-accused persons and, infact, was a victim of the circumstances.
47. In their statements, accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) & Reeta Bansal (A3) stated that they were innocent and had obtained loan from the bank on the basis of genuine documents. They stated that the property purchased by them was still in their possession and they were regularly making repayment of the loan amount to the bank.
48. In their statements, accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) and Sunita Sureka (A13) stated that they had taken loan from the bank for purchase of the property but after the execution of sale deed in their favour, they came to know that the seller i.e. accused Arvind Goel (A8) was not the owner of the property. They also stated that though the possession of the property was never handed over to them but they continued to make repayment of loan.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 31 of 81
49. In his statement, accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) stated that he was innocent and was duped by accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16), who obtained his signatures on various documents on the pretext of helping him in opening a bank account and misutilized the same to commit fraud on the bank.
50. The remaining accused persons also put forth the defence that they were innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
Defence evidence
51. Accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) appeared in the witness box as DW1. He deposed that accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16), who is the son of his maternal uncle, obtained his signatures on several documents on the pretext of helping him in opening a bank account in his name. He further deposed that on the same pretext, accused Girish Kumar Taneja also took him to the office of Sub-Registrar and obtained his signatures on certain blank documents. He further deposed that accused Girish Kumar Taneja got opened an account in his name in Khatri Cooperative Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi and informed him that a sum of Rs. 8 lacs had been deposited in his account to enable him to obtain loan in future. He further deposed that the said amount of Rs. 8 lacs was returned by him to accused Girish Kumar Taneja by way of cheques. He further deposed that he neither owned any property nor sold any property to any one. He also deposed that he did not receive any benefit from any transaction and was a victim of circumstances.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 32 of 81
52. DW2 Sh. Shakti Singh was summoned on behalf of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) from the office of Sub Registrar-VIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi to produce the record of sale deed dated 14.05.2003 executed by accused Ashutosh Sehgal in favour of Mohd. Raffan in respect of property No. FF-39/D, Laxmi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. The witness produced the said record and proved the sale deed dated 14.05.2003 as Ex. DW2/A.
53. Sh. Shakti Singh was also summoned on behalf of accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) as DW3 for production of the record of sale deed dated 12.03.2003 executed by accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta in favour of accused Visram (A5) in respect of first floor of property No. F-266, Laxmi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. He produced the said record and proved the sale deed dated 12.03.2003 as Ex. DW3/A.
54. Accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) appeared in the witness box as DW4. He deposed that the property No. 9/2, Second Floor, Vishwakarma Park, Delhi-110092 was purchased by him in the year 2003-2004 from Sh. Bhupinder Bhatia for an amount of Rs. 11,50,000/-. He further deposed that prior to the execution of the sale deed, an agreement to sell was also entered into between the parties and he had paid a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the vendor as earnest money. He further deposed that at the time of applying loan in Allahabad Bank for purchase of the above said property, he had submitted genuine documents. He also deposed that he had partly repaid the loan amount to the Allahabad Bank and intended to deposit the balance C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 33 of 81 outstanding amount of Rs. 7,46,000/- with the bank by January, 2017.
55. When the matter was at the stage of final arguments, accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) expired and the proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 09.02.2021.
56. I have heard the Sr. PP for the CBI and the counsels for the accused persons. The material on record has also been perused.
Arguments on behalf of the CBI
57. Sr. PP for CBI has submitted that from the material on record, evidence produced during trial and the GEQD report, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Allahabad Bank and that in pursuance thereto, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) abused his official position as a public servant by deliberately violating the bank's norms and procedures and sanctioning various housing loans on the basis of forged documents furnished by the co-accused persons. She has contended that for an offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the accused persons expressly agreed to do or caused to be done illegal act and such an agreement may be proved by necessary implication. She has argued that since the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused persons. She has C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 34 of 81 urged that as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt, they are liable to be convicted for the charges against them.
Arguments on behalf of the accused persons
58. The counsel for accused V. K. Chibber (A1) has submitted that the accused No.1 had sanctioned and disbursed the loans in accordance with the guidelines issued in the Allahabad Bank from time to time and he had not only taken all the requisite documents from the borrowers but also obtained the valuation and legal opinion/scrutiny reports from the empanelled valuer and lawyer of the bank. He has contended that the accused No.1 was not having any independent mechanism to verify the market value and title of the property and had no option but to rely on the reports furnished by the empanelled valuer and lawyer of the bank. He has argued that since the empanelled valuer and lawyer of the bank had given positive reports regarding the valuation and title of the properties and the income tax returns furnished by the co-accused persons were duly authenticated by their respective Chartered Accountants, the accused No. 1 can not be held responsible in any manner for accepting the same. He has submitted that despite the fact that the loan amount disbursed by the accused No. 1 was more than Rs. 20 crores, no additional officers were deputed for his assistance in terms of Circular No. 7746/MSD/2003- 2004/03 dated 17.05.2003 (Ex. PW22/DA) issued by the Head Office of Allahabad Bank and due to excessive work load and constant pressure from the zonal office to sanction and disburse loans, he could not C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 35 of 81 personally conduct site visits on some occasions. He has contended that since the accused No. 1 had no reason to suspect that the documents submitted by the co-accused persons were forged, the omission, if any, made by him in the performance of official duty can not be attributed as an illegal act on his part and can merely be termed as an irregularity for which no criminal liability can be fastened upon him. He has urged that in the absence of any material regarding illegal gratification or meeting of minds with the co-accused persons, no offence is established against the accused No. 1.
59. The counsels for accused Rupesh Bansal (A2), Reeta Bansal (A3), Ashutosh Seghal (A4), Visram Sharma (A5), Sunita Sureka (A13), Prem (A14), Sudhir Chugh (A15) and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18), who are either the borrowers or the sellers, have contended that in the absence of any cogent and legally admissible evidence that the documents furnished by them were forged, no offence is established against them. The counsels for accused Sunita Sureka (A13) and Sudhir Chugh (A15) have further submitted that though the accused Nos. 13 & 15 have admitted certain incriminating circumstances in their statements under Section 313 CrPC but the same is of no avail to the prosecution as the burden of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt always rests upon the prosecution.
60. The counsels for accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16) and Raman Gupta (A17) have submitted that the accused Nos. 16 and 17 were neither C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 36 of 81 the borrowers nor the sellers in any of the loan transactions. They have stated that the said accused persons had not even stood as guarantors for any of the borrowers. They have submitted that the only allegation against the said accused persons is that some amounts were credited in their accounts from the accounts of some of the co-accused persons. They have argued that since no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused Nos. 16 and 17, they deserve to be acquitted of the charges against them.
61. Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 13 to 18 have been charged for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 471 IPC & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act. An additional charge for the substantive offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act has also been framed against accused V. K. Chibber (A1).
62. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties and evaluation of the material on record, it would be apposite to have a glance on the relevant legal provisions involved.
Legal provisions involved
63. Section 13 of the PC Act defines the offence of criminal misconduct. The relevant portion of the said section is reproduced as under:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, -
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 37 of 81
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) xxx xxx xxx
(d) if he, -
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e) xxx xxx xxx"
Section 13 (2) of the PC Act prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal misconduct.
The offence of criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120A IPC. It reads thus:
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement
is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof."
Section 120B IPC provides punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy.
Section 415 IPC defines the offence of cheating. It reads as under:
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 38 of 81 anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
Section 420 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
The offence of forgery has been defined in Section 463 IPC. It reads thus:
"463. Forgery.- Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
Section 464 IPC defining 'making a false document' is extracted below:
"464. Making a false document.- A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record -
First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly-Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 39 of 81 any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
Section 471 IPC deals with the offence of using as genuine of any forged document. It provides as under:
"471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."
Necessity of sanction for prosecution qua accused V. K. Chibber (A1)
64. It is only the accused V. K. Chibber (A1), who was working as a public servant at the time of the commission of the alleged offences. It is a matter of record that the Allahabad Bank had imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from its service on accused V. K. Chibber vide order dated 13.05.2005 (Ex. PW11/B). Charge sheet was filed in the year 2007. Since the accused No. 1 had retired from the service prior to filing of charge sheet, there was no requirement for obtaining sanction for his prosecution in terms of Section 19(1) of the PC Act as it stood at the relevant time. I am fortified in taking this view by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Station House Officer, CBI/ACB/Bangalore v. B.A. Srinivasan & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 153.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 40 of 81 Appreciation and evaluation of evidence
65. Now I shall dwell upon the material on record to consider whether the prosecution has been able to prove the offences in question against the accused persons.
Use of forged title documents of sellers and siphoning of loan amounts
66. Sr. PP for the CBI has argued that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Allahabad Bank and in pursuance thereto, the borrowers and sellers involved in six housing loans namely HLP 173, HLP 258, HLP 323, HLP 332, HLP 333 and HLP 308 fraudulently furnished fake and forged title documents of the properties proposed to be purchased/sold and accused V. K. Chibber (A1) deliberately accepted the same and sanctioned loans to the co-accused persons. She has urged that upon the disbursal of loan amounts, the accused persons transferred the funds to the bank accounts of each other in order to deprive the bank from effecting the recovery of the same, which also points towards their involvement in the conspiracy.
67. Per contra, the counsels for the accused persons have contended that the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent and legally admissible evidence to prove that the title documents of the sellers were false and forged. They have submitted that in the absence of any such evidence, the allegations regarding conspiracy and cheating are without any basis.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 41 of 81
68. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the Court shall examine the material in respect of the said housing loans one by one.
HLP 173 & HLP 258
69. The material on record in respect of the above housing loans are being dealt together as the said loans were sanctioned in respect of two different floors of the same property i.e. house No. F-266, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and the evidence produced by the prosecution is more or less on similar lines. While the loan of Rs. 8 lakhs had been sanctioned in HLP 173 on 27.11.2002 in the name of accused Prem (A14) for purchase of second floor of the property from accused Sudhir Chugh (A15), the loan of Rs. 8.75 lakhs had been sanctioned in HLP 258 on 15.03.2003 in favour of accused Visram Sharma (A5) and one Laxman Prasad for purchase of first floor of the property from accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18). Before sanctioning both the above loans, accused V. K. Chibber got verified the title documents in favour of the respective sellers from the empanelled lawyer of the bank, who gave positive reports (Ex. PW22/DH-2 & Ex. PW22/DD-2) regarding the title and non-encumbrance of both the floors of property. Further, in his valuation reports dated 20.10.2002 (Ex. PW22/DH-
1) and dated 10.03.2003 (Ex. PW22/DD-1), the empanelled valuer of the bank had assessed the market value of second and first floors of the property as Rs. 9.65 lakhs and Rs. 9.95 lakhs respectively. The valuer had also specifically observed that the second and first floors of the property were self occupied i.e. the respective sellers were in possession thereof. In view of the above, it is evident that accused V. K. Chibber had taken C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 42 of 81 recourse to all the safeguards for verification of valuation and title of the property. It is the case of the prosecution that the title documents furnished by the accused persons were forged and fabricated as accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) were not the owners of the second and first floors respectively. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e. Sh. Rajesh Dave as PW17 and Sh. Tarun Kumar Dave as PW12. PW17 Sh. Rajesh Dave deposed that his wife Smt. Daxa R. Dave had purchased the second floor of the house No. F-266/E, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from Smt. Laxmi Devi Sehgal vide registered sale deed dated 20.05.1999. Likewise, PW12 Sh. Tarun Kumar Dave deposed that his wife Smt. Trivani T. Dave had purchased the first floor of the house No. F-266/E, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from Smt. Laxmi Devi Sehgal vide registered sale deed dated 07.06.1999. Both the witnesses produced the original sale deeds and identified the photographs of their wives and Smt. Laxmi Devi Sehgal on the respective sale deeds. The photocopy of the sale deeds dated 20.05.1999 and 07.06.1999 are on record as Ex. PW17/A and Ex. PW12/A respectively. A perusal of the said sale deeds shows that they are in respect of the second and first floors of the property No. F- 266/E. However, the properties for the purchase of which the loans were sanctioned in HLP 173 and HLP 258 are having municipal No. F-266 only. In the sale deed dated 28.11.2002 executed between accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) and Prem (A14) pertaining to HLP 173 and the sale deed dated 12.03.2003 executed between accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) and Visram Sharma (A5) relating to HLP 258, which were kept with the bank by way of equitable mortgage, the municipal number of the property has C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 43 of 81 been mentioned as F-266 only. Even in the valuation reports dated 20.10.2002 and 10.03.2003, the empanelled valuer of the bank, who had visited the second and first floors of the property on 19.10.2002 and 10.03.2003 respectively for the purpose of valuation, had also mentioned the municipal number of the property as F-266 only. In view of the variation in the municipal numbers of the properties in the sale deeds produced by PW12 and PW17 and sale deeds executed between the accused persons, it can not be said with certainty that the properties in question were one and the same. Further, no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution as to why in place of Smt. Daxa R. Dave and Smt. Trivani T. Dave, their respective husbands were examined, who were not even the attesting witnesses to the sale deeds dated 20.05.1999 and 07.06.1999. Apart from the above, PW17 Sh. Rajesh Dave and PW12 Sh. Tarun Kumar Dave had only identified the photographs of their wives and Smt. Laxmi Devi Sehgal on the respective sale deeds dated 20.05.1999 and 07.06.1999. Needless to say, mere identification of the photographs of the parties on the said sale deeds does not prove the execution of the documents. Since the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove the signatures of the parties to the sale deeds dated 20.05.1999 and 07.06.1999, the same have remained unproved.
70. At this juncture, it is noteworthy that in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) stated that he was not the owner of any property and was duped by accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16), who obtained his signatures on several documents on the pretext of helping him C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 44 of 81 in opening a bank account in his name and misutilised the same. He further stated that accused Girish Kumar Taneja also took him to the office of Sub-Registrar to complete the formalities for opening of bank account. He also stated that the CBI falsely implicated him as an accused despite knowing well that he was neither aware about the acts committed by accused Girish Kumar Taneja and his associates nor benefitted from any of the deals as the money was returned to accused Girish Kumar Taneja as soon as it was deposited in his bank account without his knowledge and consent. He also got himself examined as DW1 under Section 315 CrPC and deposed on similar lines.
71. The question which thus falls for consideration is what would be the effect of the aforesaid stand taken by accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) on the case of the prosecution and involvement of accused persons.
72. Sr. PP for the CBI has submitted that in view of the admission made by accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) that he was not the owner of any property, it is evident that the sellers and borrowers in HLP 173 and HLP 258 namely accused Sudhir Chugh (A15), Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18), Prem (A14) and Visram Sharma (A5) entered into a conspiracy and prepared and used forged title documents in respect of the first and second floors of the property in question to defraud the bank. She has argued that the exculpatory statement made by accused Sudhir Chugh that he was duped by accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16) is of no assistance to him as the same is nothing but an after thought. She has contended that the very fact C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 45 of 81 that accused Sudhir Chugh appeared before the Sub-Registrar and executed the sale deed dated 28.11.2002 in favour of accused Prem (A14) in respect of the second floor of the property goes to show that he was fully aware of the nature of the said document as well as the documents executed subsequent thereto i.e. sale documents dated 19.02.2003 executed in favour of accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) in respect of the remaining portion of the property, on the basis of which, accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta further sold the first floor of the property to accused Visram Sharma (A5) vide sale deed dated 12.03.2003. She has submitted that accused Raman Gupta (A17) stood as attesting witness to the sale documents executed by accused Sudhir Chugh in favour of accused Prem and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta in respect of the second floor and remaining portion of the property respectively; accused Girish Kumar Taneja stood as attesting witness to the agreement to sell dated 04.03.2003 executed by accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta in favour of accused Visram Sharma in respect of the first floor of the property and accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) & Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) stood as guarantors in respect of loan pertaining to purchase of the first floor of the property. She has urged that the aforesaid conduct of accused Raman Gupta, Girish Kumar Taneja, Ashutosh Sehgal and Bhushan Dev Chawla reflect their complicity in the conspiracy. She has submitted that the GEQD report has confirmed that the relevant documents bear the signatures of the above mentioned accused persons. She has contended that the omission of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) in conducting personal site visits shows that he was also involved in the conspiracy and deliberately sanctioned and disbursed loans on the basis of the forged C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 46 of 81 documents. She has argued that upon the credit of loan amount of Rs. 8 lakhs (HLP 173) and Rs. 8.75 lakhs (HLP 258) in the bank accounts of respective sellers namely accused Sudhir Chugh and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 50,000/- were transferred from the bank account of accused Sudhir Chugh and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta respectively to the bank account of accused Girish Kumar Taneja and Rs. 3 lakhs was transferred from the bank account of accused Sudhir Chugh to the bank account of accused Ashutosh Sehgal, which also corroborate the involvement of accused Girish Kumar Taneja and Ashutosh Sehgal in the conspiracy.
73. In addition to the arguments elaborated earlier, the counsels for accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16), Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18), Raman Gupta (A17) and Prem (A14) have submitted that Section 315 CrPC merely enables an accused to give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him and thus, the incriminating statements made by accused Sudhir Chugh against the co-accused in his deposition would be inadmissible against them. They have contended that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in support of the conviction must be fully established and that the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete, so as not to leave any reasonable doubt for a conclusion, consistent with the innocence of the accused. They have argued that in the absence of any such chain of evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 47 of 81
74. For determining the contentions raised, it would be germane to refer to the precedents on the scope and extent of the provisions of Sections 313 and 315 CrPC.
75. In Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh & Anr., (2002) 10 SCC 236, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"30. The statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the persecution. As held in the case of Nishi Kant by this Court, if the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction."
76. In Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"41. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that statement under Section 313 CrPC is recorded to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice as it requires that an accused may be given an opportunity to furnish explanation of the incriminating material which had come against him in the trial. However, his statement cannot be made a basis for his conviction. His answers to the questions put to him under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions. Thus, the statement of the accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, it can be used only for appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, though it cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. In case the prosecution evidence is not found sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The statement under Section 313 CrPC is not recorded after administering oath to the accused. Therefore, it cannot be treated as an evidence within the meaning of C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 48 of 81 Section 3 of the Evidence Act, though the accused has a right if he chooses to be a witness, and once he makes that option, he can be administered oath and examined as a witness in defence as required under Section 315 CrPC. An adverse inference can be taken against the accused only and only if the incriminating material stood fully established and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. However, the accused has a right to remain silent as he cannot be forced to become a witness against himself. "
77. In Tribhuvan Nath v. The State of Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 511, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"29. The first question is whether the Trial Judge was right in using the evidence given by Accused 3 which he gave as a witness in his defence ? The position with regard to such evidence is that when a person, accused along with others, voluntarily steps in the witness box as a witness in defence, he is in the same position as an ordinary witness (See Peoples Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar, and Jibachh Shah v. The State), and is therefore, subject to cross-examination by the prosecution counsel and evidence brought out in such cross-examination can be used against his co-accused..........."
78. The position of law which emerges from the above decisions is that the statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only for appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution. However, if an accused enters the witness box under Section 315 CrPC, he is in the same position as an ordinary witness and his deposition can also be used against his co-accused.
79. In view of the above legal position, the question that arises for consideration is whether the deposition of accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) as defence witness would be admissible against the co-accused by virtue of the provisions of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. For attracting the said C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 49 of 81 section, there should first be a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts or statements can be used against his co-conspirators. Since accused Sudhir Chugh has made an exculpatory statement qua his role, his deposition is not covered by Section 10. Even otherwise, it has been held in Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176, that for application of Section 10, common intention must be existing at the time when the thing was said, done or written by one of the conspirators and that any narrative or statement made to a third party after the common intention or conspiracy was no longer operating and had ceased to exist is not admissible against the other party as there is then no common intention of the conspirators to which the statement can have reference. Similarly, in State v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, 122 (2005) DLT 194, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the statements made by the conspirators, after they are arrested, can not be brought within the ambit of Section 10 because by that time the conspiracy would have ended. Consequently, the deposition of accused Sudhir Chugh is to be considered on the same footing as that of an ordinary witness.
80. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till contrary is proved and the burden lies on prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 50 of 81
81. The instant case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) Each fact and circumstance on which the prosecution relies in support of its case must be of such a character as to lead to a reasonable inference about some aspect of the guilt of the accused.
(ii) Every such fact or circumstance on which the prosecution relies must be clearly proved beyond doubt, and the burden of its proof always lies on the prosecution.
(iii) The proved facts and circumstances of the case should form a chain which must be complete and unbroken, and no link in it must be missing.
(iv) The proved facts and circumstances of the case must be of such a nature in their cumulative and total effect, that there is no escape from the only conclusion that the accused is irresistibly and unmistakably guilty of the offence of which he is accused.
That is, the proved facts and circumstances must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but must be inconsistent with his innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.
82. In the backdrop of the above cardinal principles, I proceed to examine the effect of deposition of accused Sudhir Chugh (A15) as a witness in terms of Section 315 CrPC. HLP 258 and HLP 173 pertain to the purchase of first and second floors of the property No. F-266, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. As mentioned earlier, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it has remained unproved that the sellers in the above housing loans were not the owners of respective floors of the property. However, in his testimony as DW1, accused Sudhir Chugh has admitted that the property C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 51 of 81 in question was never owned by him. As per the title documents furnished to the bank, accused Sudhir Chugh had purchased the property No. F-266, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from Sh. Anil Kumar vide sale documents dated 21.10.1994 and later on, sold the second floor of the property to accused Prem (A14), the borrower in HLP 173, vide sale deed dated 28.11.2002 and the remaining portion consisting of ground, first and third floors to accused Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vide sale documents dated 19.02.2003, who in turn had sold the first floor of the property to accused Visram Sharma (A5), the borrower in HLP 258. In his testimony, accused Sudhir Chugh deposed that accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16) had obtained his signatures on several documents on the pretext of helping him in opening a bank account in his name and had misutilized the same. In his cross-examination conducted by the Sr. PP for the CBI, accused Sudhir Chugh admitted his photograph and signatures on the sale deed dated 28.11.2002 (Ex. PW27/DX1) executed in favour of accused Prem (A14). A perusal of the above sale deed shows that the same is a registered document. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. Considering the same and in the absence of any independent evidence to the contrary, the exculpatory part of the deposition of accused Sudhir Chugh that accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16) had obtained his signatures on blank documents can not be accepted. As far as the inculpatory portion of the testimony of accused Sudhir Chugh that he was not the owner of the property in question is concerned, it needs no emphasis that the burden of proving the same was on the prosecution and the deposition of accused Sudhir Chugh in that regard can only be used for the purpose of C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 52 of 81 corroboration. For proving the fact that accused Sudhir Chugh was not the owner of the property and that the sale documents dated 21.10.1994 executed in his favour by Sh. Anil Kumar were bogus, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to examine Sh. Anil Kumar. However, neither Sh. Anil Kumar nor any of the attesting witnesses to the said sale documents has been examined by the prosecution. Though the investigating agency obtained specimen signatures of Sh. Anil Kumar for comparison with his signatures on the above sale documents but the GEQD report dated 10.09.2007 [Ex. PW28/A (Colly.)] opined that it was not possible to express any definite opinion regarding the same on the basis of material supplied. Since the prosecution has not led any independent evidence to show that Sh. Anil Kumar was not the owner of the property in question or had not executed the sale documents dated 21.10.1994 in respect of the property in favour of accused Sudhir Chugh, it has failed to prove that the property was never owned by accused Sudhir Chugh. Consequently, the bare statement of accused Sudhir Chugh that he was not the owner of the property at any point of time is of no help to the case of the prosecution. The assertion of the prosecution that accused Sudhir Chugh was never the owner of the property in question was the most vital link to connect the chain of circumstances alleged by it. As the said vital link has not been proved by the prosecution, the very basis of its allegation of criminal conspiracy and cheating in respect of HLP 173 and HLP 258 fades away. As the prosecution has failed to prove that the title of the properties involved did not vest in the respective sellers, the mere fact that after the credit of loan amounts in the bank accounts of sellers, they had transferred C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 53 of 81 some amounts to the bank accounts of accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16) and Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) is also of no consequence. Sr. PP for the CBI has contended that it was obligatory for accused V. K. Chibber (A1) to conduct personal site visits in terms of directives issued by the Head Office of Allahabad Bank. However, no such directive has been brought to the attention of the Court. Even otherwise, mere codal violations per se do not constitute any criminal offence and it is necessary for the prosecution to prove dishonest intention on the part of a public servant. As mentioned earlier, accused V. K. Chibber had adopted all the necessary safeguards by getting verified the market value of the property and title documents of the sellers from empanelled valuer and lawyer of the bank. In his cross- examination, PW22 Sh. Narendra Kumar Mehrol has admitted that the branch manager has to rely on the reports of approved valuer and panel lawyer as he has no independent mechanism to verify the value and title of the property. Keeping in view the same and in the absence of any evidence regarding illegal gratification, it can not be said that accused V. K. Chibber had committed criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official functions. I am fortified in taking this view by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala, (2016) 12 SCC 273, wherein it has been observed thus:
"20. In C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., this Court held that even when codal violations were established and it was also proved that there were irregularities committed by allotting/awarding the work in violation of circulars, that by itself was not sufficient to prove that a criminal case was made out. The Court went on to hold:
"22. On a careful consideration of the material on the record, we are of the opinion that though the prosecution has established C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 54 of 81 that the appellants have committed not only codal violations but also irregularities by ignoring various circulars and departmental orders issued from time to time in the matter of allotment of work of jungle clearance on nomination basis and have committed departmental lapse yet, none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are of any conclusive nature and all the circumstances put together do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the said circumstances are compatible only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and wholly incompatible with their innocence. In Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar v. State (UT of Goa, Daman and Diu), under somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined that mere disregard of relevant provisions of the Financial Code as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviour of government officials and contractors, without conclusively establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the officials and contractors concerned, may give rise to a strong suspicion but that cannot be held to establish the guilt of the accused. The established circumstances in this case also do not establish criminality of the appellants beyond the realm of suspicion and, in our opinion, the approach of the trial Court and the High Court to the requirements of proof in relation to a criminal charge was not proper."
83. Though the prosecution has failed to prove that the sellers in HLP 173 and HLP 258 did not have title over the respective properties, it would be relevant to refer to the following observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751, in respect of the offence of forgery:
"14. An analysis of Section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 55 of 81
2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or
(b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
In short, a person is said to have made a "false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
15. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of "false documents". It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that Accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor, colluded with the first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category.
16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of "false documents", it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 56 of 81
17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted."
84. In view of the law laid down in Mohd. Ibrahim case (supra), even if the prosecution would have succeeded in proving that the title of properties involved in HLP 173 and HLP 258 did not vest in the respective sellers, the offence under Section 471 IPC would not have been made out against the accused persons as the necessary ingredients of 'making of a false document' as defined in Section 464 CrPC would have been lacking.
HLP 323
85. By way of HLP 323, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) sanctioned housing loan of Rs. 13.20 lakhs in favour of accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) and Vaibhavi Goel (A7) on 26.05.2003 for purchase of first floor of the property No. 14, Lal Bahadur Shastri Compound, Village Shalimar, Delhi- 110088 from accused Arvind Goel (A8) and for its renovation. Rs. 10 lakhs was for purchase of house and Rs. 3.20 lakhs was for renovation work. It transpires from the record that in his report dated 12.04.2003 (Ex. PW22/DE-2), the empanelled lawyer of the bank had reported that the property was owned by the seller and did not have any encumbrance. Further, in the valuation report (Ex. PW22/DE-1) and estimate report (Ex. PW22/DE), both dated 02.05.2003, the empanelled valuer of the bank had assessed the market value of the property and the amount required for C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 57 of 81 renovation as Rs. 14.22 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs respectively. The valuer had also observed that he had visited the property on 01.05.2003 and the seller was in occupation thereof. Apart from the above, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) had also personally inspected the property on 06.07.2003 to verify the end use of loan disbursed towards renovation work. Hence, it is evident that accused V. K. Chibber had taken all the precautionary measures before sanctioning and disbursing loan for purchase of property and its renovation. The case of the prosecution is that accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) and Vaibhavi Goel (A7) not only submitted the bogus title documents of the seller but also the fake bills showing purchase of materials for renovation of the house and accused V. K. Chibber deliberately accepted the same and sanctioned loan for purchase of property and its renovation. Even though both the borrowers as well as the seller are proclaimed offenders, it is necessary to evaluate the genuineness of title documents of the seller and bills submitted by the borrowers in order to find out as to whether there was criminal misconduct on the part of accused V. K. Chibber in sanctioning loan on the basis of said documents. The prosecution has examined Sh. Kailash Chander Bhutani as PW8 to show that the seller i.e. accused Arvind Goel (A8) did not have title over the property at the relevant time. PW8 deposed that he had purchased the entire portion of property No. 14, Village Shalimar, Delhi from accused Arvind Goel vide registered sale deed dated 16.02.1996. He produced the photocopy of the said sale deed as Mark PW8/A and identified the impressions of his signatures as well as photographs of himself and accused Arvind Goel thereon. He also deposed that subsequently, he had sold the property to C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 58 of 81 some relative of accused Arvind Goel. Since the prosecution has neither brought on record the original sale deed dated 16.02.1996 in favour of Sh. Kailash Chander Bhutani nor summoned the record thereof from the office of concerned Sub-Registrar, its allegation that accused Arvind Goel had sold the property to Sh. Kailash Chander Bhutani has remained unsubstantiated. Further, in order to prove that the bills submitted by the borrowers in respect of the renovation work were bogus, the prosecution has examined Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta as PW4. PW4 deposed that he was the owner of Bhagwati Sanitary Hardware & Mill Store situated at B/15, Main Road, Shalimar Gaon, Delhi and that the cash memo (Ex. PW4/A) for a sum of Rs. 42,085/- in favour of accused Vinay Kumar Goel was neither issued from his shop nor the signature of vendor appearing thereon was his signature. The record shows that the prosecution has not produced and proved any document to show that PW4 was the owner of Bhagwati Sanitary Hardware & Mill Store. Even otherwise, a perusal of the bill shows that it bears the serial number as well as the date of issuance thereof. In view of the same, it was incumbent on the part of PW4 to produce the bill book of the relevant date to show that the bill in question was not issued from his shop. However, the said record was not produced. Needless to say, the bare denial of PW4 that the bill was not issued from his shop is not sufficient. It is seen from the record that besides the above said bill, the borrowers had also submitted other bills in respect of purchase of materials and labour charges for the renovation work. No evidence was led by the prosecution qua the remaining bills. Accordingly, the allegation of the prosecution that the borrowers had furnished fake bills in respect of C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 59 of 81 renovation work can also not be accepted. Considering the above and in the absence of any evidence regarding illegal gratification, it can not be said that accused V. K. Chibber (A1) had committed criminal misconduct by sanctioning loan for purchase and renovation of the property on the basis of above said documents.
HLP 332
86. Vide HLP 332, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) sanctioned housing loan of Rs. 13.50 lakhs in favour of the deceased accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12) and his wife Sunita Sureka (A13) on 30.05.2003 for purchase of ground floor of the property No. 14, Lal Bahadur Shastri Compound, Village Shalimar, Delhi-110088 from accused Arvind Goel (A8) and for its renovation. Rs. 10.30 lakhs was for purchase of house and Rs. 3.20 lakhs was for renovation work. However, out of the amount sanctioned for renovation of property, Rs. 2.22 lakhs only was transferred to the bank account of the borrowers. Here it is pertinent to mention that though the municipal number of the property in this loan and HLP 323 (i.e. the loan dealt with above in para No. 85) is the same but the floors thereof are different. While HLP 323 relates to the first floor of the property, the present loan pertains to the ground floor of the property. It is borne out from the check list on site visit dated 30.05.2003 (Ex. PW21/DA) that accused V. K. Chibber had personally inspected the property on 28.05.2003 i.e. before sanctioning of loan. Further, in the valuation report (Ex. PW22/DG-1) and estimate report (Ex. PW22/DG), the approved valuer had assessed the market value of property and the amount to be incurred towards its renovation as Rs. 14.40 lakhs and Rs. 3.65 lakhs C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 60 of 81 respectively. The empanelled lawyer of the bank had also given positive report (Ex. PW22/DG-2) regarding the title and non-encumbrance of the ground floor of the property. In view of the above, accused V. K. Chibber had taken all necessary steps for verification of the valuation and title of the property. Moreover, as it has already been observed that the prosecution could not prove that the entire portion of the property No. 14, Lal Bahadur Shastri Compound, Village Shalimar, Delhi had been sold by accused Arvind Goel (A8) to Sh. Kailash Chander Bhutani (PW8) vide sale deed dated 16.02.1996, its allegation that the ground floor of the property was not owned and possessed by accused Arvind Goel at the time of sanctioning of loan has also remained unsubstantiated. Consequently, no offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct in respect of the alleged use of bogus title documents of the property is made out against the accused persons.
HLP 333
87. By way of HLP 333, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) sanctioned housing loan of Rs. 11.35 lakhs in favour of accused Rajan Arora (A9) and Sunita Arora (A10) on 30.05.2003 for purchase of the house No. 98, Second Floor, Front Side, Old Gobindpura, Delhi-110051 from accused Bhushan Dev Chawla (A11) and for its renovation. Rs. 9.93 lakhs was for purchase of house and Rs. 1,41,400/- was for renovation work. While the loan amount for purchase of property was directly credited in the bank account of the seller, the loan amount for renovation was transferred to the bank account of the borrowers. Though both the borrowers as well as the seller are proclaimed offenders, it is necessary to touch upon the genuineness of the C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 61 of 81 title documents of the seller in order to determine the charge of criminal misconduct against accused V. K. Chibber (A1). The record reveals that accused V. K. Chibber got verified the title documents of the seller and vide his report dated 20.05.2003 (Ex. PW22/DF-2), the empanelled lawyer of the bank reported that the property was owned by the seller and did not have any encumbrance. Further, in his valuation report (Ex. PW22/DF-1) and estimate report (Ex. PW22/DF), both dated 19.05.2003, the approved valuer had assessed the market value of property and the amount to be incurred towards its renovation as Rs. 12 lakhs and Rs. 1.80 lakhs respectively. The valuer had also observed that he had inspected the property on 18.05.2003 and the seller was in occupation thereof. Apart from the above, accused V. K. Chibber had also personally inspected the property on 20.06.2003 to verify the end use of loan disbursed towards renovation work. Thus, it is apparent that accused V. K. Chibber had adopted all the safeguards before sanctioning and disbursing loan for purchase of property and its renovation. As per the title documents of the property, accused Bhushan Dev Chawla had purchased the property from Sh. Sham Sunder Arora vide General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell & Purchase, Affidavit, Receipt, Will and Possession Letter, all dated 15.11.2000, who in turn had purchased the same from Smt. Chando Bai vide similar set of documents dated 07.07.1988. In order to prove that the title of the property was not vested in accused Bhushan Dev Chawla, the prosecution has examined Sh. Gyan Prakash Arora and Sh. Ashok Kumar as PW14 and PW7 respectively. PW14 Sh. Gyan Prakash Arora deposed that he had purchased the property in question in the name of his mother C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 62 of 81 Smt. Chando Bai vide sale deed dated 09.03.1971. The photocopy thereof is on record as Mark PW14/B. After going through the documents dated 07.07.1988 [Mark PW14/C (Colly.)] in favour of Sh. Sham Sunder Arora i.e. the predecessor-in-title of accused Bhushan Dev Chawla, the witness stated that the same could not have been executed by his mother as she had expired on 11.04.1973. He further deposed that after the death of his mother, he had sold the property to Sh. B. R. Bansal and Sh. Vijay Kumar vide General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit and Receipt, all dated 03.09.1996. The photocopies of the above documents are on record as Mark PW14/A (Colly.). Since the prosecution has neither produced any cogent evidence such as original death certificate of Smt. Chando Bai to show that she had expired on 11.04.1973 nor placed and proved on record the originals of documents Mark PW14/A (Colly.), the fact that Smt. Chando Bai could not have executed the sale documents in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of accused Bhushan Dev Chawla or that after her death, his son Sh. Gyan Prakash Arora (PW14) had sold the property in favour of Sh. B. R. Bansal and Sh. Vijay Kumar have remained unproved. The other witness examined by the prosecution is PW7 Sh. Ashok Kumar. He is stated to be a subsequent purchaser of the property in question. He deposed that he had purchased the property from Smt. Neelam Sharma vide General Power of Attorney dated 23.03.2000 and had later on sold the same to accused Rajan Arora vide General Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2003. The photocopies of the said documents are on record as Mark PW7/A and Mark PW7/B respectively. As the prosecution has neither produced and proved the originals of the above documents nor C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 63 of 81 the chain of documents to show as to how Smt. Neelam Sharma had acquired title of the property, the said factum of purchase and sale of the property by Sh. Ashok Kumar has also remained unsubstantiated. In order to show the conspiracy between the accused persons, the prosecution has further examined Sh. Rattan Lal, who not only stood as a guarantor in the above housing loan but also appeared as a attesting witness to the sale deed dated 31.05.2003 executed between the borrowers and the seller, as PW1. In his testimony, PW1 deposed that he wanted to purchase some property and on the pretext of applying loan for the same, accused Rajan Arora (A9), Girish Taneja (A16) and Rupesh Bansal (A2) had obtained his signatures on some documents. The testimony of PW1 has remained completely vacuous in as much as he did not disclose the details of the property for the purchase of which loan was required by him. Considering the same and in the absence of any complaint made by PW1 in that regard, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. It is further the case of the prosecution that after the credit of loan amount of Rs. 10 lakhs towards sale consideration in the bank account of seller and Rs. 1,41,400/- towards renovation work in the bank account of borrowers, they had transferred amount of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 40,000/- respectively to accused Girish Kumar Taneja (A16). Since the prosecution has failed to prove that the seller was not the owner of property and the transfer thereof in favour of borrowers/purchasers was sham, which was the root of its allegation of conspiracy, mere transfer of the said amounts is of no consequence. Consequently, no offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct in respect of the alleged use of bogus title documents of property is established against the accused C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 64 of 81 persons.
HLP 308
88. Vide HLP 308, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) sanctioned housing loan of Rs. 13.75 lakhs on 14.05.2003 in favour of Mohd. Raffan and Shabana (both absconding) for purchase of the house No. FF-39/D, Second Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) and for its renovation. Rs. 10.84 lakhs was for purchase of house and Rs. 2.91 lakhs was for renovation work. Rs. 11 lakhs (after debit of excess amount of Rs. 16,000/- from the account of borrowers) towards purchase of property was directly credited in the bank account of the seller. Out of the amount sanctioned for renovation work, Rs. 1.90 lakhs only was transferred to the bank account of the borrowers. A perusal of the check list on site visit (Ex. PW21/DD) shows that accused V. K. Chibber had personally inspected the property on 13.05.2003 i.e. before sanctioning of loan. Vide his valuation report (Ex. PW22/DI-1) and estimate report (Ex. PW22/DI-3), both dated 10.05.2003, the approved valuer had assessed the market value of the property and the amount required for renovation work as Rs. 13.77 lakhs and Rs. 3.65 lakhs respectively. The empanelled lawyer of the bank in his report dated 03.05.2003 (Ex. PW22/DI-2) had also reported that the property was free from encumbrance and was owned by the seller. Hence, accused V. K. Chibber had taken all due steps for verification of the valuation and title of the property. As per the title documents of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (seller), he had purchased the property from accused Raman Gupta (A17) vide Agreement to Sell and Receipt dated 30.05.2000, who in turn had purchased the same from Smt. Manjula Aggarwal vide C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 65 of 81 Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt and Will, all dated 29.05.1988. The prosecution has examined Smt. Manjula Aggarwal (PW20) to show that accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4) did not have title over the property. PW20 Smt. Manjula Aggarwal deposed that she had purchased the plot No. 39FF, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from some one and after about seven months, had sold the same to some one. The witness was shown the documents in favour of accused Raman Gupta (A17), who was the predecessor-in-interest of accused Ashutosh Sehgal (A4). After going through the same, she denied her signatures thereon and stated that she never sold the property to accused Raman Gupta. It needs little emphasis that mere denial of her signatures by PW20 on the documents in favour of accused Raman Gupta is of no assistance to the case of the prosecution. It was incumbent upon her to produce the document to show as to whom she had sold the property. Neither she produced any such document nor she disclosed the name of the person to whom she had sold the property. Considering the same, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of PW20. It is further the case of the prosecution that after the credit of the loan amounts of Rs. 11 lakhs and Rs. 1.90 lakhs in the bank accounts of the seller and borrowers/purchasers respectively, the seller transferred a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to accused Raman Gupta (A17) and the borrowers transferred the entire amount of Rs. 1.90 lakhs to the seller. As the prosecution has failed to prove that the seller was not the owner of property and the transfer thereof in favour of borrowers was sham, which formed the foundation of its allegations, were transfer of the said amounts alone is inconsequential. Accordingly, no offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 66 of 81 and criminal misconduct in respect of the alleged use of bogus title documents of property is made out against the accused persons.
Exaggerated valuation of property by the borrowers and use of forged bills in respect of renovation in HLP 242
89. By way of the above housing loan, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) sanctioned Rs. 11.80 lakhs in favour of accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) and Reeta Bansal (A3) on 26.02.2003 for purchase of the house No. 9/2, Second Floor, Ramesh Park Extension, Shahdara, Delhi from Sh. Bhupender Bhatia and for its renovation after debiting Rs. 11,000/- from the bank account of the borrowers. Rs. 10.50 lakhs was for purchase of house and Rs. 1.41 lakhs was for renovation work. There is no dispute regarding the genuineness of title of the seller in the instant housing loan. Sr. PP for the CBI has submitted that the market value of the property was about Rs. 4 lakhs but accused Rupesh Bansal fraudulently gave exaggerated valuation of property and, in conspiracy with accused V. K. Chibber, got sanctioned Rs. 10.50 lakhs for purchase of house and after the loan amount was credited in the bank account of the seller, took the excess amount from him by way of cheques. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Sh. Bhupender Bhatia as PW9. PW9 deposed that his uncle Sh. Ripu Daman Bhatia had purchased the property in question in his name in the year 2003. He proved the registered sale deed dated 26.02.2003 executed by him in favour of accused Rupesh Bansal in respect of the property as Ex. PW1/J; the application dated 28.02.2003 submitted by him with Allahabad Bank for opening a savings bank account C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 67 of 81 in his name as Ex. PW9/A; the bankers cheque dated 26.02.2003 for a sum of Rs. 10.50 lakhs issued by Allahabad Bank in his favour as Ex. PW9/B and the cheques No. 082311, 082312, 082314, 082315, 082316, 082317, 082318, 082319, 082320, 082791, 082792 and 082793 stated to have been signed in blank and handed over by him to accused Rupesh Bansal as Ex. PW9/C1 to Ex. PW9/C12. However, PW9 did not disclose the purpose for which the said cheques were handed over by him to accused Rupesh Bansal. In his cross-examination, PW9 stated that the above cheques were handed over in the presence of his uncle Sh. Ripu Daman Bhatia, who has also been examined by the prosecution as PW16. In his deposition, PW16 did not make reference to any such cheques. A perusal of the above said cheques shows that none of them had been issued in favour of accused Rupesh Bansal. Infact, all the cheques were issued by PW9 either in his own favour or in favour of different other persons. It is further noticed that none of the self-cheques bear the signatures of accused Rupesh Bansal on their back side and the amounts thereof had been withdrawn by PW9 himself. It is also seen that out of the cheques issued in favour of other parties, three cheques bearing Nos. 082317, 082318 and 082792 were issued in the name of Sh. Ripu Daman (PW16), uncle of Sh. Bhupender Bhatia (PW9). In view of the above, the deposition of PW9 that he had handed over blank signed cheques to accused Rupesh Bansal and that the same were utilized by him stands falsified. PW9 further deposed in his cross-examination that the property was purchased by him for a consideration of Rs. 3.5 lakhs but upon being confronted with agreement to sale and purchase dated 17.09.2002 (Ex. PW9/DX-1), vide which he C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 68 of 81 purchased the property from Sh. Rajinder Kumar, he admitted that the sale consideration was mentioned therein as Rs. 55,000/- and stated that the market value of the property was much higher and the consideration amount as shown at lower side to save the stamp duty. Since PW9 is not a truthful witness, no reliance can be placed upon his statement that the actual amount paid by him for purchase of property was only Rs. 3.5 lakhs. The record shows that in the report dated 18.02.2003 [Ex. PW22/DC- 1(Colly.)], the empanelled valuer of the bank upon market enquiries had assessed the valuation of the property as Rs. 11.70 lakhs. The Court finds no reason to disbelieve the said report. Considering the same, it can not be accepted that the accused Rupesh Bansal had dishonestly furnished the exaggerated valuation of the property.
90. It is further the case of the prosecution that accused Rupesh Bansal submitted forged bills of various shops showing purchase of materials for renovation of the house. In support of the above allegation, the prosecution has examined Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma as PW2. PW2 deposed that he used to work as Accountant with M/s. Roshan Lal Pawan Kumar situated at K-5, Rajdhani Park, Nangloi, Delhi in the year 2003 and prepare its bills and invoices. He further deposed that the firm had started issuing computer generated bills in English in the year 2001 and that the bill dated 08.03.2003 (Ex. PW2/A) for a sum of Rs. 55,200/- in favour of Rupesh Bansal was not issued from the firm as the serial number was not mentioned thereon and the particulars therein were filled in Hindi. He also deposed that the handwriting and signature appearing on the bill were C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 69 of 81 neither in his hand nor in the hand of any other official of the said firm. It transpires from the record that the witness did not produce any letter from the management of the said firm authorising him to depose on their behalf. No other document showing that PW2 used to work as Accountant with the above firm during the relevant period has also been proved by the prosecution. PW2 did not even produce the relevant records to show that the firm used to issue computer generated bills in English or that there was no corresponding entry therein in respect of the bill in question. Though PW2 admitted that the format of the bill in question tallied with the format of the bills issued by the firm but stated that the handwriting and signature appearing thereon were neither in his hand nor in the hand of any other official of the firm. It is apparent from the above deposition of PW2 that other officials of the firm also used to issue bills. However, he did not disclose the names of such officials. Due to the above short falls, the version of PW2 that the bill in question was not issued from the said firm has to be discarded. Here it is important to note that besides the above said bill, accused Rupesh Bansal and Reeta Bansal had furnished six more bills in respect of purchase of materials and labour charges for the renovation work. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution qua the remaining bills. The total amount of all the above bills was Rs. 2,30,000/- whereas the loan amount advanced to the borrowers for renovation work was Rs. 1,41,000/- only. The record also shows that upon inspection of the property, the empanelled valuer of the bank had issued completion certificate dated 19.04.2003 to the effect that the renovation work had been carried out and the amount incurred towards the same was assessed to be Rs. 1,80,000/-. In C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 70 of 81 view of the above, the stand of the prosecution that accused Rupesh Bansal and Reeta Bansal induced the bank to release loan amount towards renovation work by furnishing fake bills can also not be accepted.
Sanction of loan in HLP 242 without guarantors
91. Sr. PP for the CBI has submitted that in total disregard of the norms of the bank, accused V. K. Chibber (A1) had sanctioned housing loan of Rs. 11.80 lakhs in favour of accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) and Reeta Bansal (A3) on 26.02.2003 in HLP 242 without obtaining personal guarantee of two persons and thereby, he had committed criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official functions. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the Circular No. 7031/ADV/2001-2002/51 dated 10.11.2001 [forming part of Ex. PW27/S (Colly.)] issued by the Head Office of Allahabad Bank. The above circular reveals that in order to give boost to the housing finance scheme, certain relaxations were made and it was stipulated that in place of the personal guarantee of two persons, the assignment of life policy with face value covering 25% of the loan could be obtained. A perusal of the loan file (Ex. PW1/I) of HLP 242 shows that accused V. K. Chibber (A1) had kept two original life policies of accused Rupesh Bansal (A2) having cumulative sum assured of Rs. 3 lakhs as pledge before sanctioning of loan. Since the sum assured of the life policies was more than 25% of the loan sanctioned, there was no violation of the norms of the bank in that regard. Accordingly, the question of criminal misconduct on the part of accused V. K. Chibber in not obtaining the personal guarantee of two persons does not arise.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 71 of 81 Forged signatures of co-borrower on the loan application and accompanying documents in HLP 258
92. Sr. PP for the CBI has submitted that accused Visram Sharma (A5) had submitted a joint application with the bank for grant of loan showing himself and his brother Laxman Prasad as borrower and co-borrower respectively. She has argued that the testimony of Laxman Prasad (PW31) and GEQD report has established that the signatures of the co-borrower on the loan application and accompanying documents were forged and thereby, it is evident that accused Visram Sharma not only used the forged documents as genuine but also cheated the bank by fraudulently inducing it to sanction the loan. She has contended that since accused V. K. Chibber (A1) sanctioned loan without making any due enquiries, it is apparent that he was acting in conspiracy with accused Visram Sharma.
93. On the other hand, the counsel for accused Visram Sharma has submitted that as the signatures of co-borrower were not in the handwriting of accused Visram Sharma, it can not be said that he had committed the offence under Section 471 IPC. He has argued that the offence of cheating, if any, was committed by the imposter who had forged the signatures of co-borrower and no liability in that regard can be fastened on the accused Visram Sharma.
94. The counsel for accused V. K. Chibber has submitted that in the absence of any evidence that accused V. K. Chibber had knowledge about the alleged forgery, the offence of criminal conspiracy is not made out C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 72 of 81 against him.
95. A perusal of the loan application dated 05.03.2003 [forming part of Ex. PW24/11 (Colly.)] submitted in HLP 258 shows that the same was a joint application in the names of accused Visram Sharma (A5) and Sh. Laxman Prasad as borrower and co-borrower respectively. It is not in dispute that Sh. Laxman Prasad is the brother of accused Visram Sharma. In his testimony, PW31 Sh. Laxman Prasad deposed that he was residing in a temple situated at B-5/14, Krishna Nagar, Delhi in the year 2003 and had never availed any loan from the Allahabad Bank. He further deposed that the photograph and signatures of the co-borrower as appearing on the loan application dated 05.03.2003 were not his photograph and signatures. The above deposition of PW31 has not been disputed in his cross- examination conducted on behalf of accused Visram Sharma. Qua his specimen signatures [Ex. PW27/D (Colly.)], PW31 admitted that the same were given by him to the CBI officials. Upon comparison with the specimen signatures, GEQD has also opined in its report dated 10.09.2007 [Ex. PW28/A (Colly.)] that the signatures of the co-borrower on the loan application were not in the handwriting of Sh. Laxman Prasad. Accordingly, it is established that the signatures of the co-borrower on the loan application dated 05.03.2003 were forged. In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 581, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that making of a document is different than causing it to be done and an offence of forgery can not lie against a person who has not created it or signed it. In view of the above judgment, it was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove that accused Visram Sharma was the maker of C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 73 of 81 forged signatures. Though the investigating agency had taken the specimen signatures of accused Visram Sharma but the GEQD was not asked to compare the same with the signatures of the co-borrower on the loan application. In the absence of any evidence that the signatures of the co- borrower were put by accused Visram Sharma, the offence under Section 471 IPC is not established against him.
96. The Court shall now examine whether the ingredients of the offence of cheating are made out against accused Visram Sharma (A5). The essential ingredients of the offence of 'cheating' are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. To constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).
97. GEQD report has opined that the specimen signatures of accused Visram Sharma (A5) tally with the signatures of main borrower on the loan C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 74 of 81 application dated 05.03.2003. It is seen from the loan application that the column meant for co-borrower bears the details of Sh. Laxman Prasad, who is the brother of accused Visram Sharma. The record also reveals that the income tax returns of accused Visram Sharma as well as Laxman Prasad were submitted with the bank in support of the loan application. It is a matter of common knowledge that a co-borrower is generally used to help an individual obtain a loan which he otherwise not able to qualify for on his own. The very fact that the signatures of Sh. Laxman Prasad on the loan application were forged, it is quite evident that accused Visram Sharma was fully aware that his brother had not applied for grant of loan in the capacity of co-borrower. Despite knowing the same, accused Visram Sharma deceived the bank by misrepresenting that the loan was applied by him jointly with his brother and fraudulently and dishonestly induced the bank to grant loan for purchase of property on the basis of the combined credit profiles and income of him and his brother. Believing the said misrepresentation, the bank sanctioned and disbursed the loan in favour of accused Visram Sharma by crediting the same in the bank account of the seller of property. Accordingly, it is established that accused Visram Sharma is guilty of the commission of offence under Section 420 IPC.
98. As far as the role of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) is concerned, merely because the signatures of the co-borrower on the loan application were forged, it does not ipso facto mean that the same was within his knowledge. As mentioned above, a photograph of an imposter had been affixed on the top of the column meant for co-borrower. It appears therefrom that the said imposter had appeared in the bank pretending to be Laxman Prasad with a C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 75 of 81 view to conceal the identity of co-borrower and deceive the bank officials. The use of such a disingenuous recourse, infact, indicates lack of knowledge on the part of accused V. K. Chibber about the factum of forgery. It is trite that the suspicion, however grave, can not take place of proof. In the absence of any positive evidence to show the involvement of accused V. K. Chibber in the conspiracy, the same has remained unsubstantiated.
Use of forged income tax returns of borrowers and guarantors
99. Sr. PP for the CBI has submitted that out of the seven housing loans involved in the present case, the income tax returns furnished by the borrowers and guarantors in six housing loans are forged. She has argued that since the borrowers and guarantors have used their forged income tax returns as genuine and induced the bank to sanction loan on that basis, they have committed offence under Section 420 and 471 IPC. She has contended that the omission of accused V. K. Chibber (A1) to get the income tax returns verified before sanctioning of loan points towards his criminal misconduct in discharge of official functions and complicity with the co- accused persons.
100. It transpires from the record that vide Circular No. 6951/ADV/2001- 2002/34 dated 06.09.2001 [forming part of Ex. PW27/S (Colly.)], the Head Office of Allahabad Bank had circulated the modified Housing Finance Scheme amongst its officials. At serial No. 5 of the modified scheme, it has been stipulated that for sanctioning loans in favour of non-salaried persons, it was necessary for the bank to obtain the following documents:
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 76 of 81
(i) Copy of latest income tax return alongwith copy of latest income tax assessment order and in case of non-availability of assessment order, acknowledgement copy of return submitted to income tax authorities; and
(ii) Statements of income & expenditure and receipts & payments duly certified by the Chartered Accountants.
101. It is evident from the above circular that the only requirement for the bank officials was to obtain requisite financial documents from the applicants and no duty was cast upon them to verify their authenticity from the income tax department. It is seen from the record that the copies of income tax returns and the accompanying financial statements furnished by the borrowers and guarantors bear the original stamps and signatures of the respective Chartered Accountants as token of authentication. The copies of the income tax returns also bear the impressions of the seal of the Income Tax Department. In his cross-examination, PW22 Sh. Narendra Kumar Mehrol has admitted that the bank manager has no independent mechanism to verify the income tax returns submitted by a party for availing loan and the only requirement is that the same must be certified by the Chartered Accountant. Considering the above and in the absence of any evidence regarding illegal gratification or that accused V. K. Chibber (A1) had the knowledge that the financial documents were forged, no offence of criminal misconduct or criminal conspiracy is made out against him.
102. The Court shall now advert to the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether it has succeeded in proving its case qua the C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 77 of 81 commission of offence under Section 420 and 471 IPC. In order to prove the factum of forgery, the prosecution has examined three witnesses namely Sh. Madan Lal Arora (PW5), Sh. Surender Paul (PW10) and Sh. Devender Kumar (PW13). PW5 Sh. Madan Lal Arora deposed that he was working as Income Tax Officer during the period 24.05.2007 to 06.09.2007 and proved the letter dated 18.05.2007 whereby the CBI sought information regarding the genuineness of income tax returns for the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 & 2002-2003 in respect of seven persons namely accused Prem (A14), accused Visram (A5), Laxman Prasad (brother of accused Visram), Shabana (not chargesheeted), Mohd. Raffan (not chargesheeted), Sunita Arora (proclaimed offender) and Rajan Arora (proclaimed offender) as Ex. PW5/B. PW5 also proved his letter dated 14.06.2007 vide which he reported that the above said income tax returns were not submitted with the income tax department as Ex. PW5/A. A perusal of Ex. PW5/A shows that it has been mentioned therein that the information was furnished on the basis of reports submitted by the subordinate field offices. However, the said reports have not been produced and proved by the prosecution. In the absence of the said reports, the deposition of PW5 that the said income tax returns were not submitted with the income tax department has remained unproved.
103. PW10 Sh. Surender Paul, who was posted as Commissioner, Income Tax, Delhi from 09.06.2006 to 31.08.2007, has deposed with regard to the income tax returns of accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) and his guarantors Sh. Vimal Kumar Goel and Smt. Chanchal Goel. Since accused Vinay Kumar Goel (A6) has been declared proclaimed offender and both his C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 78 of 81 guarantors have not been arrayed as accused persons, the deposition of PW10 becomes irrelevant for the purpose of present proceedings.
104. PW13 Sh. Devender Kumar deposed that he was posted as Deputy Director (Systems) in the office of Commissioner, Income Tax in the year 2007. He proved his letter dated 29.05.2007 vide which he forwarded information regarding the income tax returns of accused Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12), Sunita Sureka (A13), Vaibhavi Goel (proclaimed offender) and Rajan Arora (proclaimed offender) to the CBI as Ex. PW13/A. In the said letter, PW13 stated that the relevant income tax returns appeared to have been manually processed in the concerned wards and that the CITs of the said wards had been requested to directly intimate the CBI about the outcome of the inquiries. As no such reports of the CITs have been produced and proved on record by the prosecution, the deposition of PW13 is of no consequence.
105. As mentioned earlier, the above said income tax returns had been authenticated by the respective Chartered Accountants. However, neither the statements of such Chartered Accountants were recorded under Section 161 CrPC nor they were examined by the prosecution. It goes without saying that the said Chartered Accountants would have been the best witnesses to disclose as to whether the income tax returns in question were prepared and authenticated by them.
106. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove that the C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 79 of 81 income tax returns furnished by accused Visram Sharma (A5), Gokul Kumar Sureka (A12), Sunita Sureka (A13) and Prem (A14) were forged. Accordingly, the offence under Section 420 and 471 IPC is also not established against the said accused on the above score.
Failure of the borrowers to repay the loan
107. Sr. PP for the CBI has submitted that accused Rupesh Bansal (A2), Reeta Bansal (A3), Visram Sharma (A5), Sunita Sureka (A13) and Prem (A14) had defaulted in repayment of loan as a result of which their loan accounts were declared as non performing assets. She has argued that the said borrowers had fraudulent intention from the beginning having induced the bank to sanction the loan amounts and therefore, they are liable to be convicted for the offence of cheating.
108. On the contrary, the counsels for the aforesaid accused persons have urged that the accused persons could not repay the loan amount due to financial stringency and the requisite ingredients of the offence of cheating are absent.
109. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up the promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise can not be presumed. In Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 148, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the mere inability of an individual to return the loan amount can not give C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 80 of 81 rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. In the case on hand, as far as accused Visram Sharma (A5) is concerned, he has already been found guilty of the offence of cheating as he had obtained the loan from the bank by misrepresentation. However, no fraudulent or dishonest intention can be imputed to the remaining accused persons especially when none of the documents furnished by them have been proved to be false and bogus. In the absence of any evidence to show that the said accused persons had such intention from the beginning, they can not be fastened with the liability of offence of cheating merely because they failed to repay their loan amounts.
Conclusion
110. Resultantly, accused Visram Sharma (A5) is convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. However, he is acquitted of other charges against him. The remaining accused persons i.e. V. K. Chibber (A1), Rupesh Bansal (A2), Reeta Bansal (A3), Ashutosh Sehgal (A4), Sunita Sureka (A13), Prem(A14), Sudhir Chugh (A15), Girish Kumar Taneja (A16), Raman Gupta (A17) and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (A18) are also acquitted of the charges against them.
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY GARG
Announced on 08.05.2021. GARG Date: 2021.05.08 17:23:38
+05'30'
(SANJAY GARG)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18,
Rouse Avenue District Courts,
New Delhi.
C.C. No. 09/2019 CBI v. V.K. Chibber & Ors. Page No. 81 of 81